Lords Sitting of 16 June 1910

Preamble
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath.
STOKE-ON-TRENT BOROUGH (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [H.L.] and other Bills, do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the South Hants Water Bill; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed; and to be considered on Wednesday next. (No. 56.)
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Rhyl, Torquay, and Worthing—Was presented by the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 57.)
INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS (AMEND- MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889—Was presented by the Lord Braye; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 58.)
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and suspended for this day's sitting.

POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, the Bill to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading to-day is one which can be described as of a purely Departmental character, which does not owe its origin to any agitation either of a Party or of a non-Party character. Indeed, I would venture to describe it as a long-delayed measure of justice to one of the most deserving classes in the United Kingdom. It aims at securing to the Police Force of this country one day of rest in every week. I think it will be a surprise to a great many of your Lordships that the Police Force, numbering some 70,000 or 80,000 of His Majesty's subjects, are without this regular weekly rest-day. Nearly every other class in the community have not only their weekly rest-day but their weekly half-holiday, and, in addition, there are four Bank Holidays in the year; but, as I have said, there are between 70,000 and 80,000 men in the Police Force of this country who do not have these privileges. Yet I think that every member of your Lordships' House will agree that the Police as a class are engaged in duties not less trying or less arduous than those of any other class in the community, and

901
that, after all, the duties which they perform to the satisfaction of everybody are duties which make other people's holidays, especially Bank Holidays, possible. On the very days when the general community enjoys itself most the Police have to work the hardest, and the fact that horse traffic in our towns is rapidly being displaced by motor traffic renders those duties more and more arduous as time goes on.
The whole of life is being speeded up, and speeded up as much or more for the Police than for anybody else. I would also venture to say that the number of public processions and ceremonies, which could not take place without the guardianship of the Police, is increasing every day. It might not be out of place to refer to the recent funeral procession in London, which formed the subject of a special Message from His Majesty, congratulating the Police upon the efficient discharge of their duties—duties which they performed, I think, to the satisfaction not only of Londoners, but especially of visitors from foreign countries, who without exception were singularly struck by the efficient discharge of their duties under very difficult circumstances by the London Police; and it was a matter of comment in the newspapers that on that national funeral holiday there was not only no increase of crime whatever in the suburbs, from which the Police were largely drafted into the centre, but very little among the large crowds who were assembled to watch the procession, and that this was so is without doubt due both to the active presence of the police and to the passive influence which the knowledge of their position exerts upon a British crowd.
Now, my Lords, I am perhaps wasting sentences in arguing the merits of the Police in your Lordships' House. I do not think that any Englishman would question them. The sole point really is whether this highly deserving class of men should have a compulsory day's rest in every seven. Arguments have been advanced in another place against this principle, although I am happy to say advanced without imperilling the passage of the Bill through the other House. It is a Bill which was brought in not by Government but by a private Member—my friend Mr. Remnant, who sits on the Opposition side of the House—but which
902
has been actively supported by the Home Office, and received the personal aid of the right hon. gentleman who presides over that Department. The arguments which they had to meet, and which they met successfully, have been practically three. First, that compulsion was not necessary because it was possible for boroughs and counties to put this weekly rest-day into force without compulsion. But, my Lords, I am afraid that very little movement would be made in the direction of a weekly rest-day if matters were left as they are now. Two boroughs have carefully considered the matter and definitely and finally refused to put this weekly rest-day into force. Something like twelve or fourteen definitely postponed its consideration. Only one has had it in force for anything more than a year, and only, I think, five or six have had it in force for one year; and I am afraid, in view of the fact that two important boroughs have definitely refused to put it into force and that so many have indefinitely postponed it, that unless the Act is made compulsory matters will remain practically as they are at present.
Secondly, it is urged against the Bill that there is no evidence that the Police really want it, and no agitation on the part of the Police. I am willing to admit that there is no agitation on the part of the Police, but I would remind the House that the Police cannot, as other bodies of men can, form themselves into trade unions, and that although they have the fullest opportunities for stating any grievances, they cannot take advantage of combinations which people engaged in other professions can take advantage of; and I venture to think the fact that the Police are not organised places a special obligation upon the Legislature of this country to see that any grievances that they have are properly attended to and fully considered. I would further remind your Lordships, in this respect, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons inquired most carefully into the whole question and reported in the early part of last year. They satisfied themselves unanimously that some relief was absolutely essential, and that without delay. They reported—
"After giving the matter their best consideration, your Committee are of opinion that the provision of one day's rest in seven would be the best means of affording this relief."

903
So that this Committee, who had a great deal of evidence before them and had the opportunity of finding out what the members of the Police Force really felt, arrived unanimously at the recommendation that one day's rest in seven should be given.
Thirdly, I come to what I think is, perhaps, the real basis of the argument against this Bill—the financial one, the fact that it will involve some expense and possibly additional cost to the ratepayers of this country. I am as strong as any of your Lordships can be against any increase in rates. I have as strong objection as any member of your Lordships' House to paying more rates, but I had sooner pay higher rates than see a deserving class of the community suffering from what I consider an injustice. And from the actual financial point of view there is one borough which affords a very useful example of what the total cost might be. The borough of Reading has had this weekly rest-day in force since 1903, and the additional cost in that borough has been equal to a rate of one farthing in the £. Other boroughs granted the privilege in 1909 and 1910, and the estimated cost in those boroughs varies from one-eight, two-fifths, and one-half of a penny in the £ up to a maximum of a penny in the £. But the one borough which has actually put this in force for any number of years has been able to meet the expense by means of a rate of a farthing in the £. Further, it has been found that the fact of this weekly day's rest has had exactly the effect which anybody would anticipate of reducing the number of days sick; that the percentage of sick among the Police has been reduced in different years by rates varying from eight to two and a-half per cent.
I may here remind the House that the Select Committee which considered the matter went into this question also, and reported that, though they were convinced that the element of cost was an important matter, the figure of cost was not the only one of primary importance. They believed that—
"the London ratepayer may be assured that he will receive a satisfactory return for the small increased cost in the higher efficiency of a great body of public servants."
I do not wish to weary your Lordships, but in the Report of the Royal Commission
904
upon the duties of the Metropolitan Police will be found numerous references to the high importance to the community of keeping the Police in as fit a state of health as is possible for the discharge of the very onerous duties imposed upon them; and who can doubt that the general enactment of one regular day's rest in seven would have the effect, as it already has had in the borough of Reading, of increasing the efficiency of the Police? Those, my Lords, are the three arguments which I have been able to discover against this Bill, and in those ways will I venture to meet them.
I have to point out to the House also that in order to make it possible for local authorities to put this Act into satisfactory working it has been inserted in the Bill that they should have four years before the Bill finally comes into operation. It is to be a gradual process. Secondly, I have to point out that the reason for this Bill not applying to Scotland or Ireland is that it has been advised that it is necessary to bring in for administrative purposes a separate Bill to deal with those two countries, and that it was not possible to bring them under the operation of the same Bill. I venture to recommend this Bill to your Lordships, and to hope that it may pass the Second Reading to-day and become law at as early a date as possible. I should like to see this long delayed measure of justice, as I conceive it to be, one of the first Bills, if not the first Bill, placed upon the Statute Book at the commencement of the new reign I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I wish to say a few words upon this Bill at the earliest possible moment, because, although I have not the slightest intention of attempting to throw out the Bill on Second Reading, I think there are certain matters with which the Bill deals and certain of the provisions of the Bill which ought to be fully before the House before it is read a second time. Let me say at once that I, like almost everybody in this House and out of it, am very strongly in favour of a weekly day of rest and of holidays, and I am sure the House will all have sympathy with the class on whose behalf this Bill is introduced. They are such a

905
very hard-working body of men and in many cases are exposed to such very disagreeable work, that they should have one day's rest in seven.
But I am bound to say that I rather doubt whether the wisest course has been pursued in bringing in the same Bill to apply to districts like that of the London County Council, to the large municipalities, and also to the most scattered parts of country districts. I believe that if this Bill had been considered on its own merits as far as counties are concerned it would have been perfectly easy to satisfy the Police and give them an adequate alleviation from their labours without bringing in such a stringent measure as this. With regard to the Bill itself, the point which I wish to bring before the notice of the House is no new one. It is one which we meet with every session, I was almost going to say every month, because hardly a month passes in this House without some Bill being brought in for the purpose of dealing with questions of local government, most of them what are called national services, when no money is found by the Government for the purpose of paying for these national services, which it is admitted ought to be paid largely out of the Consolidated Fund. There being no money available at the moment we are always met by this, that the county councils and the local ratepayers must find the necessary money.
This, as I have said, is no new question; it has been going on for years. I can remind the House in a few words what the position is with regard to it. In 1901 a Commission which had been sitting with regard to local taxation for a long time, which had taken a great amount of evidence and paid considerable attention to the matter, made a Report. They proved conclusively that the burden on the local ratepayer was far higher than it ought to be, and that some relief should be afforded further than was given at that moment out of the Consolidated Fund. They proposed in 1901 that a further sum of £2,570,000 should be given on account of national services as additional grants to relieve the ratepayer. That was nearly ten years ago. But what has been happening ever since? Why there has hardly been a session in which there has not been some important Bill brought in by one Government or another which made alto-
906
gether new charges on the rates beyond those which were discussed in the Report of that Committee. I may remind the House that in the last few years there have been most serious charges for national services put upon the rates—charges for education, in connection with which, memoranda and regulations of a very onerous character have been issued; for medical inspection of children; for the training of midwives; and recently also very large extra charges have fallen upon the rates in consequence of the change in traffic over the roads. Those are some of the serious matters which we have to protest against, not merely because they are new charges, but because they are put on the top of a state of things which it was admitted was unfair before they were brought forward.
The case is admitted on all sides. The Prime Minister admits that there are undue charges on the rates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted to the County Councils Association, in the fullest way, that he entirely agrees with them that there is a strong case for a revision of the whole of this question. Yet while this is admitted generally, we have Bills repeatedly brought forward which pay no attention to the position of the ratepayer and put further charges upon the rates. Let me take the case of this Bill. My noble friend used the expression that it might "possibly" put some charge upon the rates. I can assure him that it will certainly put the whole of the charge upon the rates. The case of the Police is this. Government have admitted that the Police is a national service, and they have recognised that by saying that at least half of the cost both of the payment of the Police and of their clothing shall be met out of national funds. The whole of that was set aside in old days. What has happened since is this. When there was a considerable sum set aside in the Exchequer Contribution Account for the relief of rates, the first charge on that fund was made to cover the cost of pay and clothing of the Police. That was the first charge. Well, what is the result? When any extra charge like this has to be found it has to come out of the surplus of the fund which is given for the purpose of relieving the rates, and to the full extent of that charge it all comes out of the pockets of the ratepayers. It is quite true that a certain sum appears in your accounts which goes

907
to help cover the cost of the clothing and the pay of the Police, but that all comes out of this particular fund. The more you take out of this fund the less there is for the other purposes of local taxation, and therefore every single penny that has to come out of this fund is an extra charge on the rates. It does seem an extraordinary state of things that, while it is admitted that it is a monstrous injustice which is being done to the ratepayers, yet private Members join with the Government in bringing forward proposals which do exactly the thing which they themselves condemn. I have ventured to make this protest because I do not think it can be made often enough; and although it appears to receive very little attention in the form in which it is made, I am glad to know that this serious matter is attracting the attention of the Government at all events to some reasonable extent.
There is rather a curious provision in this Bill. My noble friend alluded to the first part of the provision, which says that—
"If this Act has not come into force as respects the police authority of any county borough maintaining a separate Police Force before the expiration of four years from the passing of this Act, it shall come into force as respects that authority at the expiration of that period."
That only has reference to county boroughs. What is the provision with regard to a county council, or other borough? The noble Viscount made no allusion to it, and I am a little puzzled to know what this provision means or is intended to mean. I have formed a judgment in my own mind which is not likely to come out, but which at all events is a suggestion which strikes one at once. The words which follow the provision I have read are—
"And if this Act has not come into operation as respects any other police authority before the expiration of such period as may hereafter be fixed by Order in Council, it shall come into operation at the expiration of that period."
Therefore this will not come into operation for any county or other police authority until an Order in Council is issued to say that it shall so come into operation. I have been fancying that it might be possible that the Government have in their minds the fact that they are doing a gross injustice by finding no money for meeting this charge, and that they have devised an operation which, if they are in a favourable mind
908
towards county councils, may prevent them putting this Bill in force at all until they have sufficient funds to meet the charge, or to meet a considerable part of the charge, which will fall upon county councils with regard to it.
I will venture to make an appeal to members of the Government—I am sorry I do not see the noble Earl the Leader of the House in his place, otherwise I would have made the appeal to him—that they should consider whether it might not be possible not to put this Bill into force with regard to counties until there are some funds to meet this additional expense. I admit that will be a solution which will be of, at all events, some assistance to us. But what the object can be of putting county councils and the other police authorities in a different position from police boroughs, unless it is for some reason of that sort, I cannot for myself understand. I am making this protest not only on behalf of the County Councils Association. I am making it for every county council in England, because not a single day passes when we do not have representations from county councils in England with regard to this matter of putting new charges for national services upon the ratepayers. I do not know whether there will be any way of dealing with this question when the Bill reaches Committee. Our object had been to join in moving, in the other House of Parliament, an Amendment in these words—
"Provided that this Act shall not come into force as regards any authority, except with their consent, until provision shall have been made by Parliament for defraying the additional cost to be incurred under this Act out of some source other than the rates levied on the precepts of local authorities."
I am quite aware that in this House it is impossible to move an Amendment of that sort, and all I can do is to satisfy myself by making my protest as strong as possible.
LORD WENLOCK: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies on behalf of His Majesty's Government I should like to say a few words at the request of the Corporation of the City of Hull. They have had this Bill under consideration, and have looked very carefully into what the effect of it is likely to be, and they have satisfied themselves, as far as they are able to judge, that the enhanced cost which the granting

909
of this privilege to the Police of their city would amount to represents quite a penny rate. I do not know how a small borough like Reading can escape with such a small rate as that which was mentioned by the noble Viscount in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. My friends in Hull have satisfied themselves that this Bill would involve an addition to their rates of at least a penny in the £. The noble Earl knows very well, as do all the members of this House, the extreme difficulty which local authorities experience at the present moment in keeping their rates down. The particular city to which I am alluding has unfortunately found itself in the position of having to raise a very high rate, and when the Corporation see that by this Bill a further addition is going to be placed upon them against their will, they wish to enter a most emphatic protest against it, unless the Government are prepared to give some assurance that they will meet the extra cost.
The Corporation of Hull have had every opportunity, if they wished to do so, of giving their Police Force, which numbers nearly 500 men, a holiday once a week, but they found the expense of it would be so out of proportion to the benefits the Police would get that they did not think they would be justified in casting this expense upon the ratepayers. Now this Bill proposes to place this duty upon them compulsorily, and they wish to protest most strongly against any burdens being placed upon their shoulders by Parliament in addition to those which they now bear, and which have been referred to by my noble friend below me. As my noble friend very truly pointed out, half the cost of the pay and clothing of the Police as a grant from the Government has now ceased, and the proportion which local bodies at present get from the Government in aid of their various duties has fallen so considerably as to throw a very much larger burden on the ratepayers. I have been especially asked, on behalf of the Corporation of Hull, to say that, as representing the ratepayers of a very large city with large and important police duties, they wish to enter their protest most solemnly and strongly against legislation of this sort being brought forward without an assurance from the Government that they will do something towards meeting the extra cost proposed to be imposed by this compulsory legislation. They do not
910
wish to stand out against the proposal to give the Police the benefits which this Bill proposes to give them. All they wish is to protest against the cost being placed on the local ratepayers; and I hope His Majesty's Government will recognise that in this matter they are placing a burden on the local ratepayers which really may be described as unfair.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just sat down and also the noble Lord below the Gangway will excuse me if I do not enter upon the general question of the proportion which should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer or the contribution which it should make in order to lighten the burdens of local rates. It is a subject which has been before your Lordships' House on several occasions, and I think it would, perhaps, be more advantageously dealt with as a question by itself as a whole than as subsidiary to the Bill now before the House. I would venture to hope that the noble Lord who represents the county councils in this House may initiate a debate on that subject, in which it can be gone into thoroughly, and on which occasion we may elicit very valuable expressions of opinion from various quarters of the House. I venture to think that would be more convenient than to deal with such a large question by a Bill, which after all, deals with only a comparatively small question.
For His Majesty's Government I have to say, with regard to this Bill, that they have no objection to offer to its Second Reading this afternoon, and that they have themselves extended to the Police Force in London a similar benefit and are in course of bringing that benefit within the reach of all constables within the metropolis. It is a matter that takes some time; it cannot be done at once; but it is gradually being done. Some Amendments may be necessary in regard to this Bill, but I can assure the noble Viscount that they shall not be of any important or destructive character. The Government will be very glad, in fact, with the exception of the Amendments which I have mentioned, to give the noble Viscount every assistance in passing this Bill, and in giving to the Police Force generally, to whom the noble Viscount paid a well-deserved tribute, that advantage which already the Police constables in the metropolis enjoy.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I cannot help making one remark in reference to what has just fallen from the noble Earl the Lord Steward. He says the question of the contribution the State should make towards local expenditure is a very large and important one, which ought to be dealt with by itself. I think your Lordships will all agree in that. But what is the corollary which I offer? It is that this being an important question, until it is discussed and put right the Government should refrain from supporting measures which are continually increasing the burden on the rates. It is a rather extraordinary argument to say that this House is not to spend its time in criticising Bills which increase the burden on the rates because this constant increase in the rates is such a serious matter that it should be dealt with by itself. I suppose your Lordships will unanimously wish well to the purposes of this Bill and the intentions of the noble Viscount who has brought it forward, but it does seem to me that there should be some restriction—I am not prepared to say now what restriction—which should give local bodies some voice in regard to the constant increases which are being put by the Government on the burdens of local authorities. We are always talking about devolution, about self-government; we are always talking about giving the county councils and the local authorities generally more control over their affairs; but what we are doing is exactly the reverse. What we are doing is practically putting local taxation in the hands of the Imperial authorities—in effect, although not in name, taking all power from the local authorities as rating bodies. If we are going on, whether it be from philanthropic or other motives, day after day compelling local authorities to undertake duties for which they must raise rates, we might just as well begin to rate the localities at once by Parliament. I venture to think that some Amendment should be adopted which would give local authorities an opportunity of bringing before Parliament in each case the question of the additional burden proposed to be cast upon them by particular legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, this short discussion has not, I think, disclosed any hostility to the principles of my noble friend's Bill. He paid a generous tribute to the value of the Police
912
Force, and that tribute evidently met with the concurrence of your Lordships; but I think he must have become aware that there are arguments bearing upon his proposals which call for very attentive consideration, and which may, perhaps, be repeated at a further stage of the Bill. I notice that my noble friend based himself upon the authority of the Report of a Committee of the House of Commons which dealt with this matter a year or two years ago. I have seen that Report, and I am not quite sure whether my noble friend has really read it with the attention which it deserves. As I understand that Report, the Committee recommended that this concession should be made, not to the Police generally throughout the country, but to the Metropolitan Police, and that recommendation, as we were told just now, is in fact being gradually carried out by His Majesty's Government. But I believe the Committee not only made no recommendation with regard to the whole Force, but in terms guarded themselves against making any such recommendation in favour of the Police Force generally throughout the country, and it must, indeed, be obvious to the House that there is a very material difference between the conditions of service of the Metropolitan Police, and, I would add, of the Police in large cities, and those of rural Police. What this Bill does is, in the first place, to put compulsion upon the local authorities to do certain things which they are perfectly competent to do, if they please, of their own accord. That is a proposal which, I think, lays itself open to the criticism made by the noble Duke who sits behind me, and my noble friend Lord Wenlock has shown that the burden thus imposed upon the local authorities is by no means a negligible burden. In the case of the city with which he is connected it will amount to something like £5,000 a year. That is a very serious matter. It has also to be borne in mind that this has been done without any full consultation with the local authorities generally in the United Kingdom. In cases of this kind every effort should be made to carry the local authorities with us when we are introducing innovations of this description at their expense.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Deputations upon the question have been received. The Home Secretary, I know, received a deputation on the subject himself.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But is the noble Viscount quite sure that the deputations were entirely satisfied?
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Oh, no; they were not satisfied.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I agree with noble Lords who have spoken, that this is not a Bill which, considering the excellence of its general intentions, should be denied a Second Reading by your Lordships. We have, moreover, to bear this in mind, that the only remedy for the financial injustice which I am afraid it may do in some cases is that there should be some inroad upon the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the ratepayers. That, obviously, is not a proposal which could be made in this House, and therefore it seems to me that we are really precluded from almost the only step which could meet the main objection that has been taken to this proposal. I am glad to observe that under the terms of the Bill a period of four years grace is allowed to the local authorities before they are compelled to put this measure into effect. That may a little mitigate its hardness. But I trust that when we come to the Committee stage my noble friend will lend an attentive ear to any suggestions which can be put forward for the purpose of meeting the criticisms which have been addressed to the House by the noble Lord below me and the speakers who followed him.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, before the Motion is put I should like to ask a question. My noble friend, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, stated that for administrative reasons it was not desired to apply the Bill to Scotland or to Ireland, but that it was intended to proceed by another Bill. Doubtless the administrative reason in the case of Ireland is that if any such Bill is applied to that country the whole cost will fall, not on the rates, but on the national Exchequer. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether there is any intention of bringing in such a Bill.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is, of course, impossible for me, representing the Home Office, to answer that question. I will transmit it to the representative of the Irish Department.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 28 th instant.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Read 1a: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 2a: Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.

JUSTICES AND THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I desire to ask the Secretary for Scotland the Question which appears in my name on the Paper—viz.: whether the legal advisers of the Crown in Scotland have expressed any opinion as to the necessity for Justices of the Peace to renew their oath of allegiance and the judicial oath on the accession of the King; and whether he is aware that a circular has been issued by a Mr. Stewart, from the County Buildings, Glasgow, saying that the Secretary for Scotland has stated he is so advised.
My interest in the matter arises in this way. A few days ago I received a courteous but a quite distinct intimation that it was necessary for me, as a Justice of the Peace for the county in which I reside, to attend on a certain day and take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath, and this was accompanied with an intimation that this was either necessary or desirable—I am not quite certain which word was used. I happen to have held the office of Secretary for Scotland on the last occasion of the demise of the Crown, and I remember then that the matter was under discussion. It arose on the point—perhaps not an unnatural one in Scotland—whether fees were exigible for the purpose of remuneration of those who had to administer the oath, and, so far as I recollect, we were not only advised by the then Law Officers of the Crown that no fee was exigible, but that it was not necessary that a Justice of the Peace should take the oath. What I am anxious to know is, what has happened since that time which has introduced a change of view?
The only difference on the Statute Book that I know of is that in 1901 an Act was passed called the Demise of the Crown Act. It is an Act of one clause, so short that I may venture to read it—
"The holding of any office under the Crown, whether within or without His Majesty's Dominions, shall not be affected, nor shall any fresh appointment thereto be rendered necessary, by the demise of the Crown."

915
It seems to me tolerably clear that that Act has nothing whatever to do with the question of the oath of allegiance or the judicial oath in the case of Justices of the Peace. Therefore I want to know if it is true that there has been a carefully considered legal opinion given to the noble Lord opposite, as Secretary for Scotland, that it is necessary that Justices should take the oath. If that has not been the case, then it is quite clear that the circular, to which I shall refer in a moment, ought not to have been issued. But if there has been a distinct decision to the effect that it is necessary, for some reason or other, for Justices to take the oath, then I venture to suggest that the Secretary for Scotland and the Scottish Office should have made the necessary intimation of the change of policy to the local clerks to the Justices of the Peace. When I protested to the clerk to the Justices for my county, I was sent a copy of a circular dated from the County Buildings, Glasgow, which ran—
"I beg to inform you that in connection with the accession of King George V the Secretary for Scotland, in reply to an inquiry, has stated that he is advised that those magistrates who have taken the oath of allegiance and judicial oath are required to renew their oath on the accession of a new Sovereign."
However important a gentleman Mr. Stewart, of Glasgow, may be, it is not either right or reasonable that a matter of this kind should emanate from him and his county buildings. If the Justices of the Peace and their clerks are to be given information throughout the whole of Scotland, I suggest that it should come from the central authority and not from Mr. Stewart. I think it shows what is at the bottom of all this. Probably there may not be much heard about extracting fees at the present time, but the clerks to the Justices are no doubt keen to look out for their own interests, and if it can be established that it is necessary to take the oath probably the next step will be that it is equally necessary to pay a fee for the purpose; and I do not see why, by a side wind of this kind, these gentlemen should be allowed to add to their remuneration.
I may mention that in connection with recent policy the judicial benches have been largely added to. I have nothing to say against that policy. I believe it to be entirely good. Those who have been added, so far as I know, are discharging their duties to the satisfaction of those
916
concerned; but there is no doubt whatever that we are going a little lower down in the social scale for Justices, to whom the payment of a fee of ten shillings or half-a-guinea may be a matter of greater importance that it is to gentlemen in your Lordships' position. Therefore it seems to me that this is a matter which should be watched with some jealousy. But I do press for information whether there has been a change in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in the last ten years on this point, and, if that is so, why it was not intimated direct from the Scottish Office to the clerks to the Justices and not in the roundabout way indicated.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, I think I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord as to how this circular was issued. The circular was issued by the gentleman named, but not with the direct authority of the Scottish Office. I believe he is the secretary of, or holds some position in relation to, an association of Clerks of the Peace in Scotland, or something of that kind. The circular was based on a reply which was sent from the Scottish Office to an inquiry to that Office on the point as to whether Justices of the Peace should or should not, on the demise of the Crown, renew their oath of allegiance and the judicial oath which they take on acceptance of office. Let me say at once, frankly, that the view of the Scottish Office was, I think, expressed rather too strongly. The word "required" is used in the circular, and it was used in one of the communications which was sent from the Scottish Office. Therefore to that extent the circular is justified in using it as the expression of opinion of the Secretary for Scotland and his advisers, and to that extent I must cry "Peccavi." That deals with the question of the issue of the circular.
The noble Lord further asks whether there has been any change of opinion on the part of the Scottish Office since the former occasion to which he alluded. As a matter of fact, on the former occasion, though so far as I am able to ascertain—I think I am stating the point correctly to your Lordships—there was no opinion expressed, it is true that Justices of the Peace were required to renew these oaths. An expression of opinion more or less definite was given by the then Law Officers to the effect that it would be well for

917
Justices of the Peace to renew their oaths. That being the state of the case, on the recent demise of the Crown when an inquiry was addressed to the Scottish Office—I put aside the point as to the word "required" being used—the opinion of the Law Officers was given. The primâ facie opinion of the Law Officers on this point was that Justices of the Peace should renew their oaths, and in that sense a reply was sent to communications received. I may also draw the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that the Lord President of the Court of Session, on the first occasion when that Court met after the demise of the Crown, stated to his colleagues that it was the duty of himself and of them to renew their oaths, and he then proceeded to administer the oaths to himself and to his colleagues. I think that correctly represents, so far as I am aware of it, the condition of legal opinion in Scotland on this point.
I am well aware of the importance of the considerations which the noble Lord has urged in regard to the collection of fees for such purposes, and I am also aware that there is considerable doubt in the matter. The opinions, I think, on this question do not at all remove all doubt upon the question. I need not allude in detail on this occasion to opinions which have been expressed on the point in England. It is obviously for the convenience of Justices of the Peace that they should know exactly how this matter stands, and if it would meet the views of the noble Lord I should be glad to confer with the Lord Chancellor and my other colleagues on this point, and endeavour to find some method of obtaining an authoritative opinion or decision on the matter so as to allay doubt once and for all. I do not think I need add anything more. The noble Lord alluded to the Demise of the Crown Act, 1901, but, as he truly said, that Act does not alter the position with regard to the renewal of these oaths.

TERRITORIAL REGULATIONS.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War when the new regulations for the Territorial Force will be issued. I may remind the noble Lord that they have been promised sometime, and that the regulations under which we at present act are in a somewhat chaotic condition.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, we hope to commence the issue of the new regulations next week. They will be sent out then to General Officers commanding and to the County Associations, and we shall proceed with the supply to the various units concerned—that will go on as rapidly as we can get the copies from the printers.

VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps it is proposed to take in order to enable the County Associations Territorial Force to carry out the difficult task of raising voluntary aid detachments now that the central executive committee of the St. John's Ambulance Association have expressed their "inability to be further formally connected" with the voluntary aid scheme published by the War Office in August, 1909.
It may possibly be within the knowledge of some of your Lordships that the St. John's Association have withdrawn participation in the voluntary aid scheme which was established by the War Office last year. This intimation was made to those interested by letter emanating from the central offices of the St. John's Ambulance Association on June 11 last, and it has put County Associations in a very difficult position. I do not propose to-night to go into the details, and I hope I shall say nothing that will add to the difficulties of the situation. Obviously some friction must have occurred somewhere, and I should regret very much if anything I said added to the friction which has arisen. In all probability later on there will be a full debate on the circumstances that have taken place. I think it will be sufficient on the present occasion to remind your Lordships of the skeleton of the scheme that was instituted by the War Office, the object, of course, being to make provision for what we must all admit is the necessary corollary of any home defence force—namely, for the care and conveyance of the sick and wounded in case of invasion.
The scheme itself consists in the raising of voluntary aid detachments. I do not propose now to go into the duties, which are various, and the responsibilities, which are great; but I think it well to remind your Lordships that in this scheme in the first

919
instance the County Associations, who are charged with the responsibility of the organisation of voluntary aid in their various counties, were empowered to delegate to the British Red Cross Society their duties with regard to the raising, and that in order to assist them the St. John's Ambulance Association was also introduced in order to give the necessary preliminary instruction in the direction of first-aid and home nursing. It will be noticed that while the aid is voluntary the responsibility, as far as the County Associations go, is compulsory, and that this proposal brings into the scheme two existing organisations with fundamental rules of their own, to which, of course, they would naturally adhere. For instance, the St. John's Ambulance Association is a very far-reaching one and I understand that, while the normal number of classes held during one year is about 3,000, during the last six months, since the introduction of this scheme, 4,600 classes have been held. This shows how wide and far-reaching an organisation the St. John's Ambulance Association is, and where you bring in an existing body of this kind it is obvious that on the part of those on whom the responsibility is placed of providing the necessary arrangements for the scheme great care must be necessary to avoid any possible friction.
By the introduction of these two existing organisations an endeavour has been made, so to speak, to put new wine into old bottles, and we know on very high authority that that endeavour ends in disaster, as it has in this case, one of the bottles, as far as the scheme is concerned, having apparently burst. What makes it more serious to County Associations is that the St. John's Ambulance Association is the foundation on which we have been instructed to build. With these few remarks I should like to repeat that I do not wish in any way to add to the necessary difficulties of the situation. My sole object in raising the question, now that our foundation has gone, is to elicit information from the War Office as to what means they propose to enable us to fulfil the duties they have imposed upon us.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, nobody regrets more sincerely than I do—in fact, than we all do at the War Office—that the St. John's Ambulance Association have seen fit to take the step that they have taken in severing their formal connection with the voluntary aid scheme. We understand from them, however, that the fact that they have, in their
920
own words, expressed their inability to be further formally connected with the voluntary aid scheme, does not mean that they intend to cease the valuable work they have been doing in holding classes for the granting of first-aid certificates. As the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, has stated, the holding of these certificates is a necessary preliminary to the formation of a voluntary aid detachment. Nobody has hitherto been allowed to join until he had obtained one of these certificates. Therefore I hope that we shall still have the advantage that will be conferred by the holding of these innumerable classes by the St. John's Ambulance Association, and that they will continue to pass people through them who will be available for voluntary aid detachments.
I should also like to say that we are issuing to County Associations in the course of the next few days an intimation that we shall henceforward be prepared to accept other first-aid certificates than those of the St. John's Association, which are the only ones we have hitherto accepted, provided that the course of instruction has been given by a duly qualified medical practitioner and an examination carried out also by a duly qualified medical practitioner, and also that the form of such certificate has been submitted to and approved by the War Office. That is a further development of the scheme which will be communicated to County Associations in the course of the next few days. I may mention that we are forming an advisory council, upon which we hope to have representatives of all the bodies concerned in this movement. That advisory council will be called together as quickly as possible, and will deal with some of the difficulties that exist in this particular case. We realise that it is essential to the progress of this scheme that the granting of preliminary certificates should be facilitated as much as possible, and while we have not got the faintest intention of lowering the standard in any way, of making the qualification standard any lower than it is at the present moment, we are going to do everything we possibly can to enable people who wish to join voluntary aid detachments to obtain satisfactory certificates as expeditiously and as easily as possible.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: The noble Lord, in his reference to the acceptance of first-aid certificates other than those of the St. John's Ambulance Association, spoke of the provision that the instruction should be by a duly qualified

921
medical practitioner and the examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner. I presume it will be clearly understood that the instructor and the examiner shall be different persons.
LORD LUCAS: I do not like to lay down anything absolutely definite on that point now, because this is just one of the points we shall lay before the advisory council. But our view at the moment very strongly is that the present standard is one which we ought to maintain.

THE SUPER-TAX.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether the cost of maintenance, repairs, insurance, and management of landed property referred to in Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1909–10, will be repaid out of Income or Super-Tax now due, if applied for under the conditions laid down by the section; and, if so, how and when application for such repayment should be made.
The difficulty arises under the construction of Section 62 of the Finance Act. The point is this. If under Section 69 of the Act a landowner has been actually repaid the extra twelve and a-half per cent. which he is going to be allowed he will be allowed to deduct that sum from the assessment which he makes for the Super-Tax. It is clear from the wording of the Act that he will be able to deduct that despite anything which is said on the Super-Tax demand note, but it is very likely that in many cases we shall have to wait so long to get our repayment under Section 62 that we shall have to pay our Super-Tax first, and in that case the difficulty arises that the duty will be repayable to us but will not have been repaid.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I think, roughly, that the answer to the Question which the noble Lord has put on the Paper is what I gave in reply to him on Tuesday evening—that the abatement in Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1909–10, will be repaid on application by the Inland Revenue. But as the point is of some importance, perhaps he will allow me to amplify that answer. The additional relief from ordinary Income Tax granted under Section 69 for the cost of maintenance, repairs, insurance, and management is granted for the year 1909–10 for the first time, and it is to be granted by way of repayment only. By Section 66 (2) (a) this relief is
922
allowed as a deduction in computing income for Super-Tax purposes, and then normally no question of repayment of Super-Tax will arise. The Super-Tax assessments for the year 1909–10, however, are directed to be made on the basis of the statutory income for 1908–09, and as Section 69 does not apply to that year the only course has been to allow the relief from Super-Tax for 1909–10 by way of repayment. Claims for relief from Super-Tax should be included with the claims for repayment of the ordinary Income Tax, and the forms will shortly be available at the offices of Surveyors of Taxes. It follows that in filling up return forms for Super-Tax for 1909–10 no deduction under Section 69 should be included. Although it is not strictly relevant to the noble Lord's Question, it may relieve the minds of some of your Lordships to know that the great majority of the details required for filling up the forms issued by the Super-Tax Commissioners are not likely to be required after the first year.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In reference to what has just fallen from the noble Lord, can he tell us whether it is absolutely legal to require every one of the details mentioned in the form?
LORD DENMAN: I have not the section of the Act by me, but the point was raised the other night by Lord Avebury. I have made inquiry regarding it, and I believe there is no doubt that it is absolutely legal to ask for these details.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord is quite certain on that point?
LORD DENMAN: Yes, I am certain.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are we to understand that all the relief given under the clauses cited by the noble Lord opposite is to be given by way of repayment?
LORD DENMAN: There are two separate cases—Income Tax and Super-Tax. With regard to Income Tax, the Act lays it down that the relief will always be by repayment. This year the relief in regard to Super-Tax will also be by repayment, but in future years it will be done in the ordinary way of deduction.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not wish to be insistent, but at the same time I should like to be quite certain on this point. We are informed that we are to state in regard to any land, tenements, or hereditaments—
LORD DENMAN: What section?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That is the point; it is no section. I am referring to the regulations with regard to the Super-Tax. We are informed that we are to state the precise situation of our property, with the name of the occupier, and the rent or annual value. Am I correct in understanding the noble Lord opposite to mean that we are bound to give the names of every occupier of every cottage, the precise situation of every allotment, and other similar details? The noble Lord says it is legal, but would he point out to me the words in the Act which empower the authorities to make a demand of this sort?
LORD HENEAGE: While the noble Lord is looking that up, may I point out that the only way in which these regulations can be asked for is under subsection (8) of Section 72, which distinctly says that the Commissioners may make such regulations as are required to carry out that section. I should like the noble Lord to show how it is necessary, in order to carry out the purposes of this section, that we should be required to give all these details. Moreover, when they have got this information it is not of the slightest use to the Commissioners. We are asked to send in the statutory rent. Now the statutory rent is the rent sent in in the demand notes in respect of Land Taxes and Income Tax. That is the basis on which those taxes are paid. Copies of those demand notes are kept in the office of the Supervisor of Taxes in each county, and if the authorities have a doubt about the good faith, honesty, or arithmetic of those who send in returns, they have only to ask these supervisors for the information they desire. I cannot imagine that any reasonable man would suppose that anyone would send in a return which was false when he knew himself that it was false, and that the supervisor in his own county would also know it was false.
LORD DENMAN: We are on an entirely different point from that in the Question on the Notice Paper, and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, will give notice of his question. But, speaking offhand—I do not like absolutely to bind myself—I think the authority for demanding these particulars is given by Section 72, subsection (2)—
"Every person upon whom notice is served in manner prescribed by regulations under this section by the Special Commissioners requiring
924
him to make a return of his total income from all sources…shall, whether he is or is not chargeable with the Super-Tax, make such a return in the form and within the time required by the notice."
Those are the words—" in the form…required by the notice."
LORD HENEAGE: That is not the subsection which enables the Treasury officials to make these regulations. They are made under subsection (8) of Section 72, which runs—
"The Commissioners may make regulations for the purpose of carrying this section into effect."
"This section" only, and for no other purpose.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I will put down a Question, as the noble Lord requests. I merely wish to say this, that the information is already in the possession of the Income Tax authorities. Why, because the Government choose to impose two different sorts of taxes, should we be required to make these duplicate returns? What Lord Heneage said a moment ago is perfectly correct, that it is of no possible use to the Inland Revenue authorities to know the names of the cottagers, or the situation of their allotments, or other minute details of that kind. On the other hand, the preparation of this information involves a frightful amount of labour on those from whom it is demanded, without any corresponding advantage to the Revenue that I can see. If the meaning of the Act is that the Commissioners have the right to demand any return they like, however useless it may be, all I can say is that we are living in a nice state of things.
House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.